I anticipate, and I am checking my figures with AEC, that we are liable to have a flow of hot water going from AEC facilities in the Great Lakes that will be larger than the flow of the Mississippi River.

These are the problems that worry me. That is why I ask you what you folks are going to be doing in your fiscal 1972 budget with regard to environment. If you want to make a comment, I will be most pleased to hear it.

Dr. TAIT. Mr. Chairman, I think I must respond in very general terms because fiscal year 1972 is quite a ways down the road.

Mr. DINGELL. I know that, but you are telling us and the Secretary has issued a press release about what he is going to do in 1972. I am not asking him to be a prophet, but he has already assumed that role. We have requested the Secretary to come but he was occupied in other matters. So you good gentlemen are here and since you are assuming his robes, I am going to expect you to be as good a prophet as he.

Dr. TAIT. Well, sir, this is our prophecy. We are going to try to get our environmental research program in the Great Lakes substantially increased in 1972. It will be largely under the auspices of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife for fisheries. We are hoping that these present procedural things that are taking place will be successful and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife can pick up for the most part the environmental work that the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is doing now.

Now, we are going to change the character of them some, as pointed out earlier.

Mr. DINGELL. Well, let me ask you this: You have your budget officer here this morning, don't you, gentlemen?

Dr. TAIT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. I am going to ask you to submit to this committee your requests to the Bureau of the Budget for 1972. They have already gone in, haven't they?

Dr. TAIT. No, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. When will they go in?

Mr. HITE. Mr. Chairman, our formal request to the Bureau of the Budget for fiscal 1972 will not go in until September 30.

Mr. DINGELL. Obvious, this committee is not going to wait around until September 30 to receive this information, but you do have inhouse working papers and so forth that deal with your budgetary needs and your budgetary plans with regard to that facility during fiscal 1972, do you not?

Mr. HITE. This is correct, Mr. Chairman. We have just gone out from the departmental budget office with our requests to the various bureaus for the initial planning figures for the fiscal 1972 cycle.

Mr. DINGELL. Then the committee will request you to submit that information to us so that we can see what your plans at least in-house are with regard to this facility for fiscal 1972.

Mr. HITE. Yes, sir. If I may indicate the time frame in which we are working, we are shooting for a composite by the 5th of May, if that is suitable.

Mr. DINGELL. That is entirely suitable because I expect that we will be going into this for probably another 3 weeks to a month, at least, and I think that would be entirely appropriate.

Mr. HITE. Thank you.

(The information follows:)

Anticipated capability of Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Mich. for fiscal year 1972 is as follows:

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, isn't that a real crisis on account of the mercury and other pollution that is going on there? Isn't that a case of where 1972 is probably too little and too late and maybe, since the President has special funds, your Governor could appeal to him for emergency relief. When we have an earthquake or hurricane or something maybe it is more in economic cost but maybe not in the long run any more important than this particular situation as far as human values go, and I would think that maybe this is sufficiently serious to ask for special consideration in the supplemental budget when it comes over or use of some of the President's funds to meet this crisis.

Mr. DINGELL. I think you raise some very good questions. Mr. Secretary, would you like to address yourself, if you please, you or Mr. Meacham, to the point just raised by Mr. Pelly with regard to emergency funds for the mercury problem that we have in the Great Lakes and your departmental plans with regard to this?

Dr. GLASGOW. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed in the Department whether we can legally spend resource disaster funds on this type of problem. At this point, it is not quite clear whether we can or we

can't.

Mr. DINGELL. You have had closure now of the entire commercial fishery in Lake St. Clair and also the closure of the commercial fishery in Lake Erie. I anticipate that there may be other closures in the area both in sport and commercial fisheries. I would like to have you look into that, if you please, Mr. Secretary, and inform this committee of what your plans are with regard to those closures.

Mr. PELLY. I don't know what the lawyers say, but you ask the fisherman and he will tell you it is a disaster.

Mr. DINGELL. I have a few commercial fishermen in the south end of my district, and I am satisfied that they will consider it a disaster. If you let us know what your plans are, we will appreciate it. Dr. GLASGOW. We will, Mr. Chairman.

(The information referred to follows:)

POSSIBLE USE OF DISASTER FUNDS FOR WORK ON MERCURY POLLUTION The present commercial fishery situation in some areas of the Great Lakes is the result of a chemical pollutant released into the environment by several industrial firms, quite likely over a period of years. Therefore, high mercury content in fish has been caused by an unfortunate oversight of industrial technology rather than by natural or undetermined causes. We believe the mercury pollution problem does not, therefore, constitute a resource disaster within the meaning of Section 4(b) of the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act,

as amended. Under the terms of that subsection, the Secretary is required to give a preference to situations involving a commercial fishery failure due to a resource disaster arising from natural or undetermined causes. In addition, Section 4(a) of the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act, as amended, is providing funds to the States for conducting research and development projects on a cost-sharing basis. State projects related to the mercury problem would be eligible. Should the Great Lakes States submit such projects under Section 4(a), they will receive proper consideration.

The Department of the Interior, through the Federal Water Quality Administration and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, has initiated investigations to assess the nature and extent of pollution from mercury and other heavy metals used by industrial firms in the Great Lakes area, and to suggest appropriate remedial measures.

Some of this effort will be carried out in cooperation with the Canadian Government. We are also reviewing other programs in the Department to determine if financial assistance in some form can be made available to commercial fishermen.

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW) has been measuring mercury in duck wings from selected localities. BSFW plans on beginning, within the next few weeks a comprehensive, long-term research program in the Great Lakes. The studies will focus on distribution of mercury in industrial effluents, the chemical composition of mercury in the wild, responses of fish to the pollutants, cycling of mercury contamination, cooperative studies of remedial measures, and effects on birds and mammals of mercury pollution. These studies will be centered at Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The Fish and Wildlife projects discussed above will be started by the early part of fiscal year 1971.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Everett ?

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Secretary, I would like to know of the coordination if any that is taking place between these two bureaus. You are phasing down the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries at Ann Arbor. What assurance do you have that you are going to retain these trained biologists and chemists when you try to phase them into the Bureau of Sport Fisheries work when they take over 1 year later? Also, I would like to know if you have had any resignations recently because of the press coverage about the closing down and the very little coverage about the phasing into the Bureau of Sport Fisheries work? Could you comment on these questions, please?

Dr. GLASGOW. To answer your first question on coordination, my instructions were to the bureaus to retain the people that would fit into the new program, that were qualified and were needed.

On the second question, I am going to ask for a response from someone else. I know of no resignations.

Mr. ROEDEL. I don't know of any resignations as a result of this.

Mr. EVERETT. Well, on the positions that are being phased out in fiscal 1971 has the Bureau of Sport Fisheries been before the Appropriations Committee and requested money to begin their phasing-in program for fiscal 1971?

Mr. THOMPSON. I am Paul Thompson, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

The Bureau of the Budget is now considering and I think you heard today that we should have word back this afternoon-a reprograming of certain Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife funds in the amount of $350,000 for application to Great Lakes fishery problems in fiscal 1971.

Mr. DINGELL. Are you referring to the mercury problem, the DDT problem, or the dieldrine problem, or what?

Mr. THOMPSON. No, the phasing-in problem. This would be our phasing-in year with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries on the Great Lakes taking over a part of the expenses of the Ann Arbor Laboratory, certain researches on Lake Erie, supporting Lake Superior environmental research, and probably some contract research on the development of a plan, a scheme for assessing the sport fish catch on the five Great Lakes.

Mr. EVERETT. You gentlemen have been before the Appropriations Committee already. Did you make a request for the $350,000 for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries at that time?

Mr. THOMPSON. This is a reprograming of money already appropriated.

Mr. DINGELL. Where is that money going to come from? Reprograming, it is always nice to know that it is in the Great Lakes area, but who are you taking it away from?

Mr. PELLY. I hope it is not from the Miller Freeman.

Mr. DINGELL. I have a feeling it might be.

Mr. THOMPSON. No, it can't be out of the Miller Freeman. I understand that at the request of the Bureau of the Budget we request reprograming of $200,000 from fish hatcheries and $150,000 from the anadromous fishery program.

Mr. PELLY. I knew it was going to catch us some place.

Mr. DINGELL. Which hatcheries, if you please, gentlemen, and what portion of the anadromous fish program is this going to come from? Mr. THOMPSON. I am afraid I can't answer that.

Mr. DINGELL. We will afford you leave to submit that information for the record.

Mr. THOMPSON. I will try to do that.

Mr. DINGELL. You can see that it comes up at an appropriate time. (The information referred to follows:)

REPROGRAMMING FUNDS FOR THE ANN ARBOR LABORATORY

Initially, it was planned to reprogram $350,000 of fiscal year 1971 funds to operate the Ann Arbor Laboratory as a joint program with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. These funds were to be derived as follows:

Management and investigations of resources:

Fish hatcheries_-_

Fishery research____

Total

Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation:
Payments to cooperators__

Total, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife__.

1 No change.

$-200,000

+350,000

+150,000

-150,000

(1)

Subsequently, it has been decided to reprogram only the $200,000 from Fish hatcheries to Fishery research and a reprogramming letter, dated April 24, has been sent to both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

The $200,000 proposed for reprogramming represents Fish hatchery standby pay and the reduction will be spread over the nationwide hatchery system. Mr. THOMPSON. The anadromous fish money, I understand, will equalize between the two bureaus the amounts available or expenditure in fiscal 1971.

Mr. DINGELL. You say will equalize the amount of money available in the Great Lakes?

Mr. THOMPSON. No sir, in the two bureaus.

Mr. DINGELL. You have to remember that your funding of the anadromous fish program in the Great Lakes has always been heavily weighted toward the sport fisheries. None of the Great Lakes has achieved much under that program through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries programs, have they?

Mr. THOMPSON. That I can't answer.

Mr. DINGELL. It happens to be a fact and I am sure Commissioner Meacham and Mr. Roedel will agree.

Isn't what you are doing, then, really just simply taking Bureau of Sport Fisheries money away from the Great Lakes area? Isn't that the practical effect of what you are accomplishing here?

Mr. THOMPSON. I am sorry. I am only on the receiving end of this $350,000. I don't really have the details on where it came from.

Mr. DINGELL. Perhaps. Mr. Roedel or the Secretary or Mr. Meacham could comment on the point we are discussing.

Mr. ROEDEL. This is a Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife budgetary change so that I really can't respond on it. I don't know how they are shifting their moneys.

Mr. DINGELL. Perhaps, gentlemen, in fairness to you and in the interests of saving time, it would be well if I were to afford you an opportunity to submit information for the record. I think that would be appropriate and fair.

(The information referred to follows:)

REPROGRAMING OF ANADROMOUS AND GREAT LAKES FISHERIES

CONSERVATION FUNDS

Initially, it was planned to reprogram $150,000 of Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation funds for use in fiscal year 1971 in the joint program of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife at the Ann Arbor, Michigan, laboratory. Subsequently, it was decided not to reprogram these funds; thus, the Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation funds will be used as originally planned and appropriated.

Mr. HITE. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HITE. I can't answer the details on the anadromous fishery programing except to say that $150,000 of Sport Fisheries money, anadromous fish, was transferred to management and investigations of resources within Sport Fisheries. We will supply the details of the reprograming proposal and, as I understand, you wanted to know what the specific effect was on the anadromous program.

Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Mr. HITE. I can't answer in detail, but I will supply it for the record. Mr. DINGELL. That will be appropriate.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Everett?

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman.

Since the subject of reprograming has been brought up for discussion I understand there is $1,190,000 that has been set aside from budget reserve from fiscal 1970 and this money has also been repro